Senate Weakening Environmental Law

November 21, 1997|The Morning Call

To the Editor:

With little fanfare or debate, the United States Senate has begun to push through a bill (S.B. 1180) to reauthorize -- and, unfortunately, to weaken -- the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For 25 years, the act has been responsible for protecting hundreds of species like the bald eagle and the grizzly bear from extinction. With the law's passage in 1973, Congress affirmed this nation's moral commitment to responsible stewardship of our wild plants and animals. At the same time, the act represented a recognition of the many reasons there are for protecting species, including thousands of essential medicines that have been derived from nature, as well as jobs and revenue that depend upon harvestable populations of wild species like salmon.

Recent polls show that the American people's commitment to endangered species protection has not wavered. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's recent approval of S.B. 1180, however, suggests that some in today's Congress have lost touch with this mainstream view.

S.B. 1180 features a new package of voluntary incentives designed to get landowners, states, and others more engaged in species conservation. Unfortunately, these incentive programs are empty promises because they depend upon tough-to-get federal funding. A dedicated funding source, similar to those used for many other programs, must be added to the bill. The authors of the bill have taken a huge leap of faith that these unproven incentive programs will result in increased conservation and have used this to justify rollbacks of existing protections. For instance, S.B. 1180 makes it harder for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to serve as watchdogs over other federal agencies whose activities often harm species and destroy habitat. S.B. 1180 allows Forest Service timber sales, Department of Transportation road-building, Corps of Engineers river dredging, and other federal projects to move forward without the same level of biological review that they now receive. The bill should be amended to restore these protective provisions.

Because it has garnered bipartisan support, S.B. 1180 has been labeled a reasonable compromise ESA bill. It is time for Americans to look beyond the labeling. In its current form, S.B. 1180 represents a dramatic step backwards for our nation's wildlife and it should be defeated. The American people want, and deserve, a truly responsible bill that updates and improves the ESA.